Montana's perfect Super Bowls in perspective

JoeSixPat said:

Unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't a football that had been exposed to Stickum also be easier for Montana to grip?

Click to expand...

Let's ask Steve if he knows where you're going with this.

Steve? Your thoughts?

I'll take a look at those 4 magic sb years -- he was 4-7 in the playoffs in his other 10 yrs.

1981 - pretty strong, beat giants + cowboys while throwing 5 td to 4 picks en route to sb vs bengals in which montana was 14/22 for 157/1

1984 - beat giants + bears this year while throwing 4 td to 5 picks with a defense allowing 3 + 0 points, en route to sb vs miami in which his defense allowed 16

1988 - beat minny + bears this year with his defense allowing 9 + 3 points en route to sb vs bengals again in which his defense allowed 9

1989 - beat minny + rams with his defense allowing 13 + 3 en route to sb vs broncos where his defense allowed 10

but joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the 10 best PPG allowed in the post season for all SB winners . . .

1985 CHI 3.3
2000 BAL 5.8
1971 DAL 6
1969 KCC 6.7
1977 DAL 7.7
1986 NYG 7.7
1984 SFO 8.7
1989 SFO 8.7
1988 SFO 9.3
1970 BAL 10

but it was joe montana that won 4 sb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.
I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.
that's greatness?

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.
this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.
we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc
maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.
but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?


from '81 - '94 the niners won 4 sb and appeared in 9 conference games.

I believe fa started in '93 with the cap being introduced shortly thereafter in '94.

coincidentally, '94 also happens to be the last sb the niners bought --- they appeared in (and lost) a single conference game after that, until harbaugh got them back in nearly 20 yrs later.

the dyna$ty was over.

1990 payrolls (niners' division bolded)


49ers $26,815,500

Jets $22,458,350
Raiders $21,507,000
Redskins $21,463,000
Browns $20,845,750
Giants $20,523,000
Bills $20,459,500
Vikings $20,285,000
Packers $19,885,500
Bears $19,965,000
Eagles $19,862,026
Patriots $19,459,500
Colts $19,210,250
Oilers $19,125,000
Dolphins $19,032,500
Seahawks $17,706,500
Broncos $17,607,900
Bengals $17,530,000
Lions $16,738,250
Rams $16,659,500
Chiefs $16,400,733
Buccaneers $16,360,417
Falcons $16,282,000
Cowboys $15,818,275
Cardinals $15,407,000
Chargers $14,981,000
Saints $14,091,417
Steelers $13,124,300


I wonder what the pats could've done with an extra 50-70m over the last 10 years.....

edit: here's a link to the article I pulled from
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ly-spent-131m-for-entire-teams-salary-in-1990
as well as the payroll list
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-12/sports/1990346110_1_million-montana-contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


over a 3 year stretch in the prime of my career I was 0-3 in the playoffs, 46/88 52% for 503 total yds with 0 td and 4 picks


WHO AM I?

All righty.

For Montana's SB career to be worse than Brady's, you have to argue convincingly that 4-0 is inferior to 4-2. Montana faced worse teams, had no salary cap, had a better supporting cast, Brady's defense spit the bit; all these arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

Therefore Montana's Super Bowl career is better than Brady's right now.

Even if Brady wins one for the thumb, is 5-2 better than 4-0? Maybe, since 5 wins is better than 4, and 7 trips (good lord) is better than 4. But Montana will always be perfect in Super Bowls and Brady won't.

Brady has been in six Super Bowls and played at a high level in all of them. Montana has him beat in this area. Montana won every time he played in an SB and didn't even throw a pick in any of them. Brady has lost twice. In this area Beady needs one for the thumb to surpass Montana.

(Brady's regular season and general playoff results put Montana supporters in the position of having to defend why Montana is better despite the numbers, of course. But that isn't the argument here.)

Richard Camembert said:

All righty.

For Montana's SB career to be worse than Brady's, you have to argue convincingly that 4-0 is inferior to 4-2. Montana faced worse teams, had no salary cap, had a better supporting cast, Brady's defense spit the bit; all these arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

Therefore Montana's Super Bowl career is better than Brady's right now.

Even if Brady wins one for the thumb, is 5-2 better than 4-0? Maybe, since 5 wins is better than 4, and 7 trips (good lord) is better than 4. But Montana will always be perfect in Super Bowls and Brady won't.

Brady has been in six Super Bowls and played at a high level in all of them. Montana has him beat in this area. Montana won every time he played in an SB and didn't even throw a pick in any of them. Brady has lost twice. In this area Beady needs one for the thumb to surpass Montana.

(Brady's regular season and general playoff results put Montana supporters in the position of having to defend why Montana is better despite the numbers, of course. But that isn't the argument here.)

Click to expand...

Claiming 4-2 is worse than 4-0 makes zero sense. The Superbowl isn't in week #1. You have to defeat a gauntlet of the best teams in the league to get there. A case could have been made that 4-0 was better than 3-2, but that ship sailed last Sunday.

Are you honestly saying that Brady's legacy would have been better off if he went one-and-done in 2007 and 2011? lol

Richard Camembert said:

All righty.

For Montana's SB career to be worse than Brady's, you have to argue convincingly that 4-0 is inferior to 4-2. Montana faced worse teams, had no salary cap, had a better supporting cast, Brady's defense spit the bit; all these arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

Therefore Montana's Super Bowl career is better than Brady's right now.

Even if Brady wins one for the thumb, is 5-2 better than 4-0? Maybe, since 5 wins is better than 4, and 7 trips (good lord) is better than 4. But Montana will always be perfect in Super Bowls and Brady won't.

Brady has been in six Super Bowls and played at a high level in all of them. Montana has him beat in this area. Montana won every time he played in an SB and didn't even throw a pick in any of them. Brady has lost twice. In this area Beady needs one for the thumb to surpass Montana.

(Brady's regular season and general playoff results put Montana supporters in the position of having to defend why Montana is better despite the numbers, of course. But that isn't the argument here.)

Click to expand...

Do we really need to argue that, it seems self evident. They played the same amount of years so far, and Brady made it to two more Super Bowls. Nobody makes the case the Eli, or Roethlisburger are on the same level as Elway because they are 2-0, but Elway is 2-3.

It's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but it seems clear to me that if your strongest argument for Montana is his inability to make more SBs, or his ability to lose before he got to them that's some pretty weak sauce. Montana's better cause he lost in the first round.

San Francisco fans are always going to have the "perfect SB" record as their ammo and it wont matter how many rings TB has despite their argument being complete lunacy.

That is their story and they are stickum to it.

Imagine if the Patriots win next season w/ Tom?
That will be 5 Superbowl championships.
7 Superbowl appearances.
10 AFC Championship games.

If this happens at Superbowl 50, they shouldn't even give him a Lombardi. They should just bring out a ****ing crown, and a throne for him to wear it in.

Give him a Lombardi? Give him a "Brady" He gets his 5th in 15 years and you automatically get the trophy named after you.

Richard Camembert said:

All righty.

For Montana's SB career to be worse than Brady's, you have to argue convincingly that 4-0 is inferior to 4-2. Montana faced worse teams, had no salary cap, had a better supporting cast, Brady's defense spit the bit; all these arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

Therefore Montana's Super Bowl career is better than Brady's right now.

Click to expand...

Even if we take your second sentence to be 100% true, it doesn't make either the first or 3rd sentence correct.

Also, anyone who can't understand that going to the SB 6 times and winning 4 times is a stronger record than only going to the SB and winning 4 times is either not being at all bright, or being deliberately obtuse in order to further an agenda, likely because they are actively trying to champion the player with the fewer appearances. There's no strict win% metric here such as to eliminate the lower percentage QB, and it's folly to pretend there is.

4-0 > 3-1
4-0 < 4-1

Really, you only get into questionable areas when you're looking at something like

1-2/1-4/1-0 v. 0-4

Or, to put it another way, get rid of the "0". Pretend that Montana is actually 4-1. Now try convincing yourself that 4-1, with 5 appearances, is better than 4-2 with 6 appearances. Without the mythical magic of the "0", it's not really even a question.

Even if you're desperate to defend Montana, you're looking at a lousy hill to die on there, with they mythical "0". You're much better with the argument, for example, that Montana had more great playoff games than Brady, even though he's also had the two worst games as well (using QB rating as the metric).

Bruins29 said:

Give him a Lombardi? Give him a "Brady" He gets his 5th in 15 years and you automatically get the trophy named after you.

Click to expand...

more like 5th in 13 years. rookie season and 08 season don't even count

eom said:

I'll take a look at those 4 magic sb years -- he was 4-7 in the playoffs in his other 10 yrs.

1981 - pretty strong, beat giants + cowboys while throwing 5 td to 4 picks en route to sb vs bengals in which montana was 14/22 for 157/1

1984 - beat giants + bears this year while throwing 4 td to 5 picks with a defense allowing 3 + 0 points, en route to sb vs miami in which his defense allowed 16

1988 - beat minny + bears this year with his defense allowing 9 + 3 points en route to sb vs bengals again in which his defense allowed 9

1989 - beat minny + rams with his defense allowing 13 + 3 en route to sb vs broncos where his defense allowed 10

but joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the 10 best PPG allowed in the post season for all SB winners . . .

1985 CHI 3.3
2000 BAL 5.8
1971 DAL 6
1969 KCC 6.7
1977 DAL 7.7
1986 NYG 7.7
1984 SFO 8.7
1989 SFO 8.7
1988 SFO 9.3
1970 BAL 10

but it was joe montana that won 4 sb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Wow! This is great analysis and terrific insight. Thanks.

the whole idea that making it to only 4 and going 4-0 in those is better than making it to 6 and winning 4 is so stupid to me.

if he only made it to 4 that means he lost in the NFC championship or earlier the rest of those years.What you are saying is that its better to lose in an earlier round than make it to the superbowl itself.

I disagree. but, hopefully brady gets his 5th next year and the argument will be over

PATS16N0 said:

Claiming 4-2 is worse than 4-0 makes zero sense.

Click to expand...

Well, if you look at how win percentage is calculated, which would be used to rank teams playing each other in any ranking system, 4-0 is clearly better than 4-2.

What is stupid, as you go on to point out, is the tendency to focus narrowly on that one statistic.

The lack of interceptions is very impressive from Montana.

I think reasonable arguments can be had either way here, there is no objectively right answer. I am a Brady fanboy, so I go with him, but if he gets #5, this debate will be much harder to have for those who defend Montana.

The only thing to settle this is for Montana to come out of retirement and see if he can do better than Brady.

Here is some perspective. Montana at 37 years old was literally 1/2 the QB TB is now.

Bobsyouruncle said:

I don't know, it's a tough call.

One guy broke records, won more games, went to more Super Bowls, and did it in the cold weather, under a salary cap, with only 1 HOF WR for 2 years.

The other guy spent 14 years in fair weather chucking balls at his stickum covered HOF WR on a team stacked with talent who couldn't leave for free agency.

Tough call.

Click to expand...

That post dripped on my keyboard.

Montana is a cheater anyway. He knew Rice was using Stickum. It would have been on the ball not to mention I am sure he knew everything his best WR was doing..

When is Bill Nye doing his tests on this?

eom said:

I'll take a look at those 4 magic sb years -- he was 4-7 in the playoffs in his other 10 yrs.

1981 - pretty strong, beat giants + cowboys while throwing 5 td to 4 picks en route to sb vs bengals in which montana was 14/22 for 157/1

1984 - beat giants + bears this year while throwing 4 td to 5 picks with a defense allowing 3 + 0 points, en route to sb vs miami in which his defense allowed 16

1988 - beat minny + bears this year with his defense allowing 9 + 3 points en route to sb vs bengals again in which his defense allowed 9

1989 - beat minny + rams with his defense allowing 13 + 3 en route to sb vs broncos where his defense allowed 10

but joe montana 4-0 INSUPERBOWLZOMG!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the 10 best PPG allowed in the post season for all SB winners . . .

1985 CHI 3.3
2000 BAL 5.8
1971 DAL 6
1969 KCC 6.7
1977 DAL 7.7
1986 NYG 7.7
1984 SFO 8.7
1989 SFO 8.7
1988 SFO 9.3
1970 BAL 10

but it was joe montana that won 4 sb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked up some stuff for a post in another thread, recently, and found out that in one particular year in the early nineties (the random one I looked up), shortly before the advent of the salary cap, the final four teams that year were all in the top 7 in team payroll.
I think the best record that year belonged to the niners, with 14 wins, iirc, and not only were they among the top teams in payroll, their payroll actually exceeded those other 3 final 4 teams by 25%, by 50% over the nfl median, and actually 100% of another team in their own division.
that's greatness?

btw, that 14-2 niner team with the bloated payroll didn't make the superbowl that year.
this was right around the time montana was wrapping up his 13 year run, and handing off the legacy to steve young, who played 13 years of his own for the club.
we all recognize some of the fixtures from those rosters, years later --- roger craig - 8 year run, rice - 16 years, clark - 9 years, rathman - 8 yrs, lott - 10 yrs, haley - 6 yrs, taylor - 9 yrs, etc
maybe the closest thing we've had in the current nfl would be the patriots, with the tenured brady being the most recognizable name, of course.
but how many others on this 'dynasty' even last long enough to see a contract extension in a salary capped nfl -- mankins, wilfork, and......?


from '81 - '94 the niners won 4 sb and appeared in 9 conference games.

I believe fa started in '93 with the cap being introduced shortly thereafter in '94.

coincidentally, '94 also happens to be the last sb the niners bought --- they appeared in (and lost) a single conference game after that, until harbaugh got them back in nearly 20 yrs later.

the dyna$ty was over.

Click to expand...

I never looked that closely at the Montana 49ers. I knew at the time that they were spending more but I wasn't sure if they were doing it legally.

We (Pats fans) need to start educating people on what really went on with some of these "GOAT" teams. That post is a great start.

Richard Camembert said:

All righty.

For Montana's SB career to be worse than Brady's, you have to argue convincingly that 4-0 is inferior to 4-2. Montana faced worse teams, had no salary cap, had a better supporting cast, Brady's defense spit the bit; all these arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that 4-2 is better than 4-0.

Therefore Montana's Super Bowl career is better than Brady's right now.

Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong question.
We are talking about their careers.
Add in the 2 extra one and dones of Montana to compare to Bradys 6 trips to the SB.
The fact that Brady won his way TO the SB twice more, is what makes 4-2 better than 4-0.
No one is saying a 4-2 record is better than a 4-0 record, they are saying 4 wins equals 4 wins, and losing in the SB twice is better than losing before getting to the SB twice.